LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for LATEX-L Archives


LATEX-L Archives

LATEX-L Archives


LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

LATEX-L Home

LATEX-L Home

LATEX-L  May 2013

LATEX-L May 2013

Subject:

Re: Behaviour of \SplitArgument with missing input

From:

Frank Mittelbach <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Sat, 4 May 2013 09:15:04 +0200

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (124 lines)

Am 30.04.2013 19:20, schrieb Michiel Helvensteijn:
> On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 4:06 PM, Joseph Wright
> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> On where '-NoValue-' 'lives', ...etc...
>
> Your problem is that xparse has been trying to cater to two different
> target groups. It's meant to create document-level commands. But it's
> not clear what kind of environment it's meant to create them from.


you hit the nail on its head (or whatever the phrase might be :-)

on one hand xparse has taken a life on its own (because of being very 
useful in 2e context) and on the other hand the middle glue didn't got 
finished so far and thus the two went of (partly at least) in different 
directions.

Conceptually what sits in the middle is what I call typesetting 
elements. Those have a type/signature which is a bunch of inputs with 
some defined semantics (and such semantics could and should include that 
such objects be optional). So that layer should provide a way to say: I 
expect some optional input, provide me with data or tell me that nothing 
is coming.

The task of the interface layer (of which xparse would be one flavor) 
would then be to translate the user interface (e.g., brackets, stars, 
what have you) into the syntax of the class design layer.

A big point to note here (for me at least) is that therefore it should 
certainly not be

    \xparse_if_no_value:nTF

because it is not an xparse concept needed on the lower level, it is a 
core concept "from" the lower level.

If somebody writes an xhtml.sty interface that provides html like syntax 
for the same typesetting elements those translation would need to result 
in the same calls to the class design layer eventually.

What I originally thought was that this class design layer is being 
essentially described by the concepts of xtemplate (only that I do 
believe that we didn't quite got that right, first time around, so these 
days I consider xtemplate only a prototype that needs redoing).

So in a nutshell, the somewhat naive version of the interface was 
supposed to look like

  \DeclareDocumentcommand \foo {<arg spec> }
     { \UseTemplate... <normalized args> }

Instead what we have now is


  \DeclareDocumentcommand \foo {<arg spec> }
     {
        bunch of low-level expl3 code
        and/or 2e code
        and possible some xparse parsing control code such as 
\IfNoValueTF and the like
     }

so ...


> On the one hand, the LaTeX3 methodology recommends the use of xparse
> for document level commands (rather than the LaTeX2 \newcommand or the
> TeX \def). On the other hand, xparse doesn't offer a LaTeX3 syntax! It
> was obviously designed to be used independently from expl3. I do
> understand. The xparse functionality is useful to both LaTeX3
> programmers and other LaTeXers.

it wasn't designed to be independent of  LaTeX3 syntax, but it was 
designed to be independent of expl3 syntax (and in my opinion still should)

> As I see it, the 'correct' way to go about this is to follow your own
> methodology (I'm a fan of self-reference):
>
> *  Create a LaTeX3 library which provides xparse functionality; let's
> call it l3xparse. I'd expect to see functions like
> \xparse_new_document_command:Nnn, \xparse_split_argument:nn,
> \xparse_if_no_value:n(TF). Actually, a lot of potential \xparse_...
> functions probably already exist under a different name, like
> \bool_if:n(TF) for \IfBoolean(TF).
>
> *  Expose l3xparse with a thin layer of document-level commands. The
> result will be what you now call xparse. The cool thing is, you can
> actually use l3xparse to create that thin layer around itself.

I agree that there should be an l3UIfoundation library that provides 
functions for splitting  etc etc as they would be useful not just for 
implementing xparse but also for parsing other syntax schemes but it 
doesn't resolve the issue that there has to be that middle layer 
(eventually) and that middle layer should not be expl3 code

If this middle layer is not provided then in my opinion that would get 
us back to mix and match of class design of 2e where a lot of the 
"design" got buried into coding rather than cleanly decoupled.

That l3UIfundation would then also be the place that holds

   \uif_if_no_value:nTF

that could be used to implement the current xparse \IfNoValueTF (which I 
never like to be there really :-) or directly used in expl3 code in the 
command body as long as there is not middle layer worth talking about.

And eventually it would be used inside the code that makes up the middle 
layer.

My view of the world (in pictures):

Logical view architecture: 
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/55981144/l3architecturepictures/Logical%20View.png

Document class architecture: 
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/55981144/l3architecturepictures/document%20class%20architecture%20%28layers%29.png

list element example: 
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/55981144/l3architecturepictures/list%20example%202.png

regards
frank

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

September 2019
July 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
July 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
September 2007
August 2007
June 2007
May 2007
March 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
November 2004
October 2004
August 2004
July 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
October 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
March 2002
December 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
October 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998
April 1998
March 1998
February 1998
January 1998
December 1997
November 1997
October 1997
September 1997
August 1997
July 1997
June 1997
May 1997
April 1997
March 1997
February 1997
January 1997
December 1996

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE

Universität Heidelberg | Impressum | Datenschutzerklärung

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager